Tyler Grant wrote: > I don't think scientists and ecologists should feel bad > about having children, because, 1, they are more likely to > understand and act in an ecologically sensitive manner
I'm not so sure. Seems to me the ecological footprint of a Ph.D. scientist or ecologist is very large. They have high paying jobs and because they commonly marry other professionals, they commonly end up having $100K+ per year household incomes. So what do they do with all that money? They consume resources in a big fashion by having 2 kids, buying a large, upscale home in the suburbs and buying a SUV that gets only 20-25 MPG, and buying myriads of consumer electronics and appliances. They also use a sizable chunk of their income to regularly shop at the giant malls and retail stores that are consuming so much of our open space. Another sizable chunk of their income is used for recreation; i.e. to patronize airports, ski resorts, amusement parks, zoos, and so forth which are also consuming our resources and open space. Still another sizable chunk of their income goes to pay lots of government taxes which in turn are used to build more and wider roads, expanded water and electric services, expanded wastewater and garbage handling facilities, expanded schools, colleges and expanded $75,000+ a year government job career opportunities for Ph.D scientists. The ecological footprint of a university professor seems especially large because over the course their lifetimes they will be creating tens of thousands of more college graduates that will end up leading similarly high resource consumptive lifestyles. Paul Cherubini
